W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2015

Re: deterministic naming of blank nodes

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@aistemos.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:02:32 +0100
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, ahogan@dcc.uchile.cl, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <E3BBC28D-F0D4-42A3-8145-AE615C013A68@aistemos.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> On 21 May 2015, at 11:06, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>> On 21 May 2015, at 10:08, Steve Harris <steve.harris@aistemos.com> wrote:
>>>> Alternatively, some SPARQL servers may use
>>>> stable internal identifiers that could serve this purpose (still
>>>> requiring normative normalization), but I suspect that there are some
>>>> implementations that don’t guarantee such stable identifiers).
>>> Right, it would involve enhancing SPARQL servers.
>> Quite a few can do this already, and there’s a syntax sanctioned by RDF 1.1
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization
> yes, except that skolemization using .well-konwn URLs is ugly, broken, and should
> never have made it into RDF1.1 spec. It breaks linked data clients that need to analyse the
> full uri for .wellknown urls before deciding wether to follow them. it would be better to have coined bnode URNs of some form. I made a suggestion along those lines at some point.
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2014Sep/0088.html

There’s nothing wrong with dereferencing a skolem URI. That’s what makes it better than a bNode label.

It’s perfectly legal to have something at the other end.

- Steve
Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 11:19:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:42 UTC